should be let alone on either side, and the operations of war confined to those bearing arms'.

Greeks were always cruel, and the Greek word at times. untrustworthy, but the Greek felt that the gods were against cruelty and lack of faith. Perjury provokes the gods, says Klearchos. And the destruction of Mykalessos was worthy only of savages'.

And the same Law of Nature spoke in the sagas of the hard fighters of the North, men who asked and gave no quarter, and scorned to die the straw-death. It told of Ragnarök, of the destruction of Odin and Thor, of Loke and Hemdall, and the reign of purity and peace.

"Then comes the mighty, the strong from on high, "who governs all. His judgment uttered, peace will be "established, and what is to be kept eternal and holy 'determined"."

It taught the Roman in spite of the conqueror's pride to learn of the Greek and the Jew; and it prepared the way for Christianity.

1 Xen. Cyrop. 5. 4.

2 Xen. Anab. II. 4. 7.

3 Thuc. vn. 29, 30.

Vicary, Saga Time, p. 286.

Three Co

rollaries of the

CHAPTER V.

THE SCIENCE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.

[A.] NORMAL INTERNATIONAL LAW.

FROM the root-conception of Territorial Sovereignty are derived naturally and obviously three all-important conception Corollaries, namely, that

of Territorial Sove

reignty

would include

the whole oftheInternational

Law of

A. All States are formally equal;

B. The principle of the Non-Intervention by one State in the internal affairs of another admits of but a single exception, viz. the imperative necessity of selfprotection;

C. Territory and Jurisdiction are coextensive.

And in these rules would, if International Law were a Peace were pure science of Territorial Sovereignty, be comprised the Inter- whole law regulating the relations of independent States Law a pure within the International Circle in time of peace, the whole science of of what may be termed Normal International Law.

national

Territorial

Sove

But International Law is not a pure science of Terrireignty: torial Sovereignty. Certain correctives must be applied before these broad principles can be treated as representing the conclusions of modern International Law.

but this is not so.

Nations

are inter dependent, and

For, while men are nationally independent, they are internationally interdependent. And, while past practice proves past recognition of legal obligation, the forces of extending civilisation will constantly suggest present amesive. lioration. Every day sees the formation of new ties of

practice is progres

intercourse among men, and each immediate satisfaction.

of want reveals another need.

is a peace

Every year the nations become less self-sufficing, and Commerce more dependent upon the interchange of products. There maker. seems no limit to the fertility of invention, or to the field of discovery: Commerce, resting upon mutual need, ranks chief among peace-makers: a nation of shop-keepers is not a nation naturally inclined to war. Wars have, indeed, been excited from time to time by the refusal of the right to traffic1, and rival traders have fought fiercely for the possession of exclusive privileges.

English Christianity has not been proof against the worldly advantage arising from the forcing upon China of the opium curse; Englishmen and Dutchmen have wrestled, like Roman and Carthaginian of old, for the sovereignty of the sea, and the ties of a common peril and a common Faith could not prevent a Massacre of 1623 A.D. Amboyna. Great Empires have been raised by long years of desperate struggle on the foundation of trading factories and the race of rival companies has in no few instances resulted in open warfare. Governments have not always been strong enough to resist the demand of rash speculators to interfere on their behalf in foreign states. Englishmen are not entirely unfamiliar with the name of a Bond-holders' War," and recent action with regard to the Delagoa Bay Railway is an apt illustration of the difficulty experienced by statesmen in the attempt to distinguish between the obligations of national credit and the defence of a private undertaking dictated by hope of profit.

But, at bottom, the spirit of Trade is the spirit of Peace. In our great Indian Empire itself, the creation of an unrivalled galaxy of military3 and administrative talent, the British power is a peace-maker.

1 Grotius, Mare Liberum, c. i. Cf. Mare Clausum, p. 4. Joannes de Solorzano Pereira, De Indiarum Jure, Lib. II. cap. 20, §§ 34-56.

2 Gardiner, Hist. of England, v. 242.

3 "Conquest was the condition of existence." Alison, Hist. of Europe from the Fall of Napoleon, i. p. 14.

1889.

What will be the political system of

the future?

Monar

chies.

And every day the ramifications of commercial relations, before which even the conservatism of China and Japan is quickly yielding, spread through a further area, and become the more involved.

What the future may have in store for the world in the political field it is impossible so much as to surmise.

The great Oriental monarchies of antiquity, Chaldæan, The Great Assyrian, Median, Babylonian and Persian, like the empire of Rome and Alexander, made for peace'. Lawless tribes might own a dubious subjection, and satraps be actually encouraged to wage petty wars, but it was something to have secured the acknowledgment of the supremacy of The a "king of kings." And to-day the Muscovite dominion. Empire of Russia. is a pacificator. The world has seen no more curious and wonderful history than that of the extension of the sway of the Scandinavian Varangians over that wild mass of Turanians and Aryans, of Europeans and Asiatics, Slavonians, Fins, Letts, Chazars, Tartars, Georgians, Circassians, Turkomans and the rest, which make up the unwieldy empire of the Caesar of all the Russias. And still it moves on eastward and southward, upon Corea, upon China, upon Persia, upon Afghanistan and upon Armenia, and, it may be, on Constantinople and Japan.

The

British

The marvellous advance, again, of the British Colonial Colonial Empire throughout the globe, and recent movements in Empire. the direction of imperial federation, furnish matter for mighty problems, and encourage the boldest anticipation, The while the United States afford a standing example of a great peace-power.

United

States.

We may not know the future; but, meanwhile, every acceleration in communication, and every extension of knowledge which tends to break down the wall of race-prejudice, must tend to change the face of international practice, and to hasten the coming of Peace. Perfect peace can

1 Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies. Maine, International Law, p. 10.

2 Segur's Russia and Peter the Great. Freeman, Historical Geography, chap. XI.

only come of perfect trust, and perfect trust of perfect knowledge. Interdependence induces toleration, and toleration can find no more congenial exercise than in the distinction and recognition of the rightful sphere of Independence.

A. All States are formally equal.

formal

The

nition.

State-Character is a fact, and that whether recognised The or unrecognised. Formal Recognition is, however, wont equality to precede the admission into the International Circle, of States. that is, into the communion of States,-of any assertors necessity of new-born national independence. And for this there is for Recoggood reason. For although all states able and willing to perform international duties are de facto entitled to the benefits of international distinction, the political consequences of the entrance of a new community within the International Circle touch such world-wide interests, that states of assured position may well claim to scrutinise the credentials of the applicants before undertaking with them the obligations of a mutual compact.

Two styles of recognition must be kept entirely and clearly apart. There is Recognition of Belligerency and Recognition of Independence.

tion of Belligerency,

Recognition of Belligerency consists merely in the ac- Recogniknowledgment by neutrals, or by the original sovereign, that a revolted community is, by reason of its position. and organisation, entitled during the course of the struggle with the mother-state, to the war-privileges belonging to a state. That recognition rests upon the importance of the intercourse of the revolted community with the recognising state. Self-protection is the only complete justification for Recognition of Belligerency1.

In order that such Recognition may be completely justified, practice requires the union of three circum

stances.

1 Hall, International Law, p. 28.